Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-16-Speech-2-264"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031216.6.2-264"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, like Mr Blokland and some other speakers, I want to speak on behalf of the accession states. When I was chairing the debates on Mrs Grossetête's and Mrs Müller's reports in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I was presented with a petition, which I have with me here tonight. It was signed by a large number of members of the observer teams from the accession states. Almost all the accession states are there represented. Certainly a very large number of Polish observers are very worried about this proposal. I support the Grossetête and Müller reports.
I congratulate both our rapporteurs, and I imagine that they will be very glad to see the back of these three proposals. They have done very good work.
However, I also support the ten-year data exclusivity period for the present 15 Member States. But I am very aware that the accession states have recently negotiated legislation in their own countries to put the
on to their statute book, and that included a period of data exclusivity of six years.
We are in danger here tonight of glossing over something very important, and I cannot understand why, given that the accession states were able to ask for derogation periods, we are not already hearing exactly what derogation periods they are asking for. Part of the trouble may be the responsibility of the accession states themselves: they have not yet asked the Commission the Commissioner can tell us this for delays, temporary derogations, extensions, etc. It would be far better, however, and in the interests of transparency, if, before we adopted this legislation - and I know that it is almost too late - we had a list of the derogations requested from the accession states in order to build these into the preamble to the existing directives before us.
Mr Liikanen may say that is impossible. If he does, he is wrong, because that is precisely what we have done in the draft directive on packaging, which we have almost concluded. The accession states asked for certain derogations. We asked what the dates were. They gave us the dates. The Commission said that these dates were fairly acceptable. We then built into the packaging directive preamble reference to the dates of derogations that the accession states requested. If we adopt the legislation before us now without specific reference to the negotiations and to the deadlines requested by the accession states, then we are in danger of producing legislation which is not transparent, because nothing will appear in the Official Journal alongside these directives drawing attention to the deadlines available to the accession states before they need to implement them.
This is a very bad way of proceeding. I have some sympathy with the Poles and others who are worried about this. I can see that it is necessary for the health of the western European pharmaceutical industry for us to go for the ten-year data exclusivity period, but we need to be fair to the accession states and, above all, we need to be transparent about the arrangements that we reach with them."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples